A Case Study in Rebuilding - From Very Close to Home

[vince]

Obviously, no two teams are composed of the identical talent mix, and no two teams' growth paths will ever be identical, but just for the sake of gaining perspective on the state of the Packers, it is enlightening to look at another franchise - and the path they have taken to rise to become Super Bowl contenders... None other than the Chicago Bears...

Their growth path looks eerily similar (albeit a mirror image) to the process the Packers are going through right now...

Following is a brief look at the historical growth of of the Bears' last few seasons...
__________________________________________________ ____________________

2001 13-3
Many said that, while the Bears had some standout talent, most notably on DEFENSE, they were not as talented a TEAM as their record indicated this year. Their subsequent "fall from grace" would give credence to that notion...

2002 4-12
Commencing with the 2003 draft, the rebuilding begins. Only 4 starters would ultimately survive the rebuilding process. However, the Bears stay with their current coaching staff - for another year.

2003 7-9
After 2 years of losing, Dick Jauron fired. Former Defensive Coordinator Lovie Smith hired.

A couple good draft picks and 1 or 2 mostly low-profile free agent signings added some depth to the team.

2004 5-11
APPEARANCES indicate indicate the team is still headed in the wrong direction, but history has proven otherwise...

Offensive Coordinator Terry Shea fired after this season, replaced by Ron Turner.

This would be the year - one year after their new Head Coach was able to implement his systems and determine how their existing roster would fit with them - where they were particularly successful in filling out their roster with talent that would significantly contribute to their success.

The Bears stay stubbornly on plan and stick with "their guys" giving them the necessary NFL experience that is needed.

2005 11-5
The corner appears to be turned...

2006 ????
4-0 so far, with 3 landslide wins, 1 against the defending conference champion... Super Bowl contention???

Offensive Starters
O.Kreutz... Drafted in 1998
R.Grossman... Drafted in 2003
D.Clark... Signed as FA in 2003
J.McKie... Signed as FA in 2003
B.Berrian... Drafted in 2004
T.Jones... Signed as FA in 2004
J.Tait... Signed as FA in 2004
R.Brown... Signed as FA in 2004
R.Garza... Signed as FA in 2005
F.Miller... Signed as FA in 2005
M.Muhammad... Signed as FA in 2005

Defensive Starters
M.Brown... Drafted in 2000
B.Urlacher... Drafted in 2000
A.Brown... Drafted in 2002
I.Scott... Drafted in 2003
H.Hillenmeyer... Signed as FA in 2003
L.Briggs... Drafted in 2003
C.Tillman... Drafted in 2003
A.Ogunleye... Traded for in 2004
T.Harris... Drafted in 2004
N.Vasher... Drafted in 2004
D.Manning... Drafted in 2006

*Only 3 of 22 starters were with the team before 2002
*15 of 22 starters were added during their losing stretch from 2002-2004
__________________________________________________ ____________________

Now let's move the timeline forward 3 years and look at the Packers recent history.

2004 10-6
Many said that, while the Packers had some standout talent, most notably on OFFENSE, they were not as talented a TEAM as their record indicated this year. Their subsequent "fall from grace" would give credence to that notion...

A first round 31-17 drubbing by the rival Minnesota Vikings, combined with a history of poor free agent signings, resignings, salary cap mismanagement and poor drafting causes GM Mike Sherman to be replaced by Ted Thompson, a Ron Wolf disciple and the architect of the Seattle Seahawks recent talent build-up that ultimately brought them to the brink of a Super Bowl title.

Previous salary cap mismanagement, compounded by a lack of depth throughout the roster, forces the rebuilding process to begin immediately.

2005 4-12
After 1 year of losing, Head Coach Mike Sherman fired. Former Offensive Coordinator Mike McCarthy hired.

At the same time as the new coaching staff, 11 new starters are introduced to begin to rebuild the team - six on defense and five on offense.

2006 ???
By almost all accounts, the early returns on the offseason draft are positive, and some mostly unheralded free agent signings add talent and depth to the roster.

Could there be some turnover in the coaching ranks (DC/DB Coach) after the team and coaching staff finds out more about itself in it's first year of implementing new personnel and systems - similar to the Bears?

Would it make sense that this upcoming offseason - again, one year after their new Head Coach will have had the opportunity to implement new systems and determine how their existing roster fits with them - should be a particularly fruitful year in adding talent - similar to the Bears?

2007 ???
Turn the corner????

2008 ???
Super Bowl contention???

Is it possible that 15 of 22 starters will be added to the Packers from 2005-2007 - like the Bears?

Is it possible that the current and continuing roster build-up could result in a mostly unpredicted 11-5 (or better) season in 2007 - like the Bears last year - only a year quicker than the Bears rebuilding timeline?

Because the Packers, unlike the Bears, started the process immediately, rather than giving their lame duck coach another year to fail, and because the Packers, at this stage of their rebuilding, appear to have been more successful in drafting talented contributors in the first year, it appears that the Packers are farther along than the Bears were at this stage of their process.

Obviously, there's much of this book yet to be written, but those TT detractors might benefit from taking a look at the big picture. Going the route that our previous GM took is what got us here in the first place.

Solid drafts and prudent free agent signings - at the right time in the process - is what will get us beyond what Mike Sherman was ever able to do.

[potsdam_11]

Nice post Vince.

We can only hope for a similar outcome at this point. I too, like what I have seen of the new talent pool, and there certainly are some striking similarities.

[wist43]

The Bears have been building a solid core of players over the past 4-5 years... They set out to build the team properly, i.e. the identity of the team is built around the running game and defense.

My hunch is that the Packers won't be able to rebuild as quickly, or as successfully b/c they don't care in the least about playing championship calibur defense, and while they talk about being committed to the running game, their philosophical approach to building that part of their team is predicated upon the gimmicky ZBS.

Beyond that, b/c their offensive system is so QB driven, their future success is tied directly to Aaron Rodgers... that's a dubious prospect.

The Packers are completely starting from scratch... they can't run the ball, and they can't play defense. Thinking that they'll be playoff competetive by 2008 is really going out there... just being somewhat competetive by 2008 would be a major accomplishment.

[wist43]

M.Brown... Drafted in 2000
B.Urlacher... Drafted in 2000
A.Brown... Drafted in 2002
I.Scott... Drafted in 2003
H.Hillenmeyer... Signed as FA in 2003
L.Briggs... Drafted in 2003
C.Tillman... Drafted in 2003
A.Ogunleye... Traded for in 2004
T.Harris... Drafted in 2004
N.Vasher... Drafted in 2004
D.Manning... Drafted in 2006

With the exception of Hillenmeyer, the Packers don't have a single starter that could replace any one of these guys...

[vince]

My hunch is that the Packers won't be able to rebuild as quickly, or as successfully b/c they don't care in the least about playing championship calibur defense,

Wist, with all due respect, this is one of the most ridiculously wrong statements I have read on this board in a long time.

The Packers have demonstrated that they set out to make the rebuilding of their defense priority ONE at this stage.

Who did they draft with their first round pick? A starting LB? Who did they sign in the offseason? A starting DE? A starting DT? Depth at LB? A starting S? A starting CB?

Would you say that the Bears didn't "care in the least about offense" when they sucked?

Wist, you are just flat out WRONG in that statement. The Packers have greater depth on D then they've had in the last number of years. They haven't produced yet on the field, but to say they don't care about it is so stupid it's laughable.

[vince]

..and while they talk about being committed to the running game, their philosophical approach to building that part of their team is predicated upon the gimmicky ZBS.
What in the HELL are you talking about? What is "gimmicky" about the most successful running scheme in football? And who the hell cares what you call it to make it sound ineffective when it's proven to be the MOST EFFECTIVE scheme in the league over the last decade.

Wist, please come with something more than that next time.

[vince]

Beyond that, b/c their offensive system is so QB driven, their future success is tied directly to Aaron Rodgers... that's a dubious prospect.
Wist, you apparently really don't understnd this system. This offense is built around running the ball effectively, and a completion-oriented passing attack.

With a new scheme, the running game is JUST BEGINNING to get on track. 100 yds last week... Thus far, the burden has been on Brett Favre, who has done well in the passing game.

Beyond your misunderstanding of the offensive system, you make two assumptions that are FAR from being definitive. 1. Aaron Rodgers will be the only option after Brett Favre... and 2. Aaron Rodgers will be ineffective when he assumes the QB role.

How's a veteran free agent like say, Steve McNair, doing this year? pretty well. If Aaron Rodgers isn't effective, he won't be the only option when Favre is gone. Also, Aaron Rodgers appears to have the arm strength and intelligence to do a very good job in this system. There's only one Brett Favre, but writing off the Packers because Brett Favre is a few years from retirement is a mistake.

[vince]

The Packers are completely starting from scratch... they can't run the ball, and they can't play defense. Thinking that they'll be playoff competetive by 2008 is really going out there... just being somewhat competetive by 2008 would be a major accomplishment.
Wist, you seemingly can't see your hand when you put it in front of your face. Why on earth would you believe that the first four games of a new coaching staff's tenure would be the optimal time frame to determine their future? PLEASE refer back to the first year of Lovie's tenure in the original post... By your logic, Lovie was taking the team in the wrong direction and should have been fired. Obviously, Bear fans are glad you're not their GM, and I'm glad that someone with vision is running the team in Green Bay.

[vince]

M.Brown... Drafted in 2000
B.Urlacher... Drafted in 2000
A.Brown... Drafted in 2002
I.Scott... Drafted in 2003
H.Hillenmeyer... Signed as FA in 2003
L.Briggs... Drafted in 2003
C.Tillman... Drafted in 2003
A.Ogunleye... Traded for in 2004
T.Harris... Drafted in 2004
N.Vasher... Drafted in 2004
D.Manning... Drafted in 2006

With the exception of Hillenmeyer, the Packers don't have a single starter that could replace any one of these guys...
OK, thank you for FINALLY saying something that makes sense. However, to say that the Packers are void of talent because the Bears are better at almost all positions is wrong as well.

It pains me to say this, but this Bears defense may very well rank right up there with the best of all time.

[MJZiggy]

Vince, you're not leaving me anything to do... :razz:

(It's ok, you're doing fine.)

[BallHawk]

Vince brings up some very good points.

[wist43]

My hunch is that the Packers won't be able to rebuild as quickly, or as successfully b/c they don't care in the least about playing championship calibur defense,

Wist, with all due respect, this is one of the most ridiculously wrong statements I have read on this board in a long time.

The Packers have demonstrated that they set out to make the rebuilding of their defense priority ONE at this stage.

Who did they draft with their first round pick? A starting LB? Who did they sign in the offseason? A starting DE? A starting DT? Depth at LB? A starting S? A starting CB?

Would you say that the Bears didn't "care in the least about offense" when they sucked?

Wist, you are just flat out WRONG in that statement. The Packers have greater depth on D then they've had in the last number of years. They haven't produced yet on the field, but to say they don't care about it is so stupid it's laughable.

The Packers turned their attention to upgrading their defense this offseason, and how did they go about doing it???

1) They kept the same scheme in place - I hate the scheme and have come to view it as far too passive.

2) They drafted Hawk... I was lukewarm on the pick, but accepted it b/c I viewed him as at least being a safe pick, i.e. not a bust. He'll be a good player, but nothing special.

3) They signed Charles Woodson for big $$$ - complete waste of money.

4) They resigned Kampman for $5 mil/yr... Average guy.

5) Manuel has been a bust.

6) Pickett has been ok... not above average, but ok.

That's your idea of beginning to build a championship calibur defense??? The bottom line is - the Packers have a very long history of being completely incompetent at scouting, evaluating, and acquiring defensive talent.

[Tarlam!]

Wist, I am surprised at you! No mention of Barnett in the last list of failures?

And you completely ignore Hodge, whom you happen to like a lot!

[Oscar]

Great work Vince. I hope the Pack can add a DE that is the real deal when it comes to rushing the QB. Some consistant presure back there will make alot of difference in the over all play of our defence. IMHO.. :smile:

[Tarlam!]

I hope the Pack can add a DE that is the real deal when it comes to rushing the QB. Some consistant presure back there will make alot of difference in the over all play of our defence. IMHO.. :smile:

Jeff, this was the jist of my post on the draft thread. I am hoping for a Mario Williams type animal to pick up at our drafting spot next April.

I know, I don't want much. I should be more demanding, but, I prefer to keep my wish list in the "do-able" section of wish lists...

[vince]

Great work Vince. I hope the Pack can add a DE that is the real deal when it comes to rushing the QB. Some consistant presure back there will make alot of difference in the over all play of our defence. IMHO.. :smile:

I agree Jeffro. Strictly from a player personnel standpoint, here's what I think the Packers need to "turn the corner" next year...

Defense
1. DE
2. S
3. CB

Kampman and KGB provide the talent to fill a rotation at one DE spot, and we need an every down DE that can rush the passer to play opposite them. Manual appears to be a half-step slow, and would be a solid backup. Another young corner (that can actually play - unlike Carroll) would provide insurance against the aging of Harris/Woodsen.

Offense
1. RB
2. TE
3. OT

Running back, IMO is the biggest area of need next offseason. Green's inability to stay healthy, and the fact that he's on the wrong side of his career indicate that fresh legs are needed badly. A playmaking TE would add another dimension to the passing game, and although I see good things in the future for the young interior line, and Colledge could possibly be better suited to play OT, Clifton and Tauscher are both getting up there and the wear and tear of playing in the NFL will catch up with them in upcoming seasons. I would also jump at the opportunity to add a playmaker like Calvin Johnson to the mix, although I don't think WR is necessarily a huge position of "need."

I believe upgrades at these positions are eminently doable in the next offseason through a combination of free agency and draft. This offseason, we can operate from a position of strength in terms of knowledge about how players fit with the direction the coaching staff is implementing, and we added at least 6 pieces last offseason, when we made relatively few moves in free agency as a result of having too many unknowns on the team.

Further, gven the youth and talent that I see developing on the interior line, at LB, and throughout the depth chart, more experience, offseason work, maturity and learning by the young foundation up and down the depth chart will put this team in position to turn the corner next year.

Then, in the offseason after next, the opporunity to upgrade a few additional positions and gain one or two more playmakers makes this team even better...

Outside of the player personnel, something is obviously amiss on the defensive side of the ball, and while none of us really knows exactly what the problem is, the combination of DC and DB coach is not delivering. Change in one or both of these areas also will likely occur, which would be a positive development as well...

[wist43]

Firstly, I would like to say that a lot of my comments of late are born out of frustration more than anything else. I don't like the direction of the team, I think the GM and coaching staff are very questionable, I hate the defensive scheme, and am skeptical that they can make the ZBS work...

Other than that??? All is well in Packerland. :smile:

Secondly, I don't suffer losing well... I didn't enjoy the 70's and 80's at all - year after year watching the Bears and Vikings smash us to smithereens. Always hoping, always "next year", always the next high draft pick...

- When they hired Wolfe, I knew he was good talent evaluator and had confidence he could rebuild the team.

- Wolfe hired Holmgren, thought it was a great hiring.

- They traded for Favre, loved the trade.

- Signed Reggie White, greatest FA signing ever.

While I loved all of those moves in the rebuilding process of the 90's, I conversely question, or outright reject most of what I've seen out of this current regime.

I hope they can get it done - I really do. Because if they can't, it's going to be a long haul back to respectability.

[The Leaper]

I'm OK with the ZBS...it merely is going to take time to implement in a successful fashion. I think it is pretty clear that this OL has improved each week. Jags and the coaching staff on the offensive side of the ball have done a great job IMO...considering they are playing with 5 guys with limited playing experience. Jennings has been very well coached to get where he is right now. Favre clearly is playing more within the game plan this year. To express any concern regarding the offensive side of the ball seems to be misguided at this point...IMO.

Our problems are all on defense. We are too old in the secondary. Woodson and Manual were poor FA acquisitions. Hawk and Hodge were solid pickups in the draft...but we need many more solid young studs on defense.

[vince]

Firstly, I would like to say that a lot of my comments of late are born out of frustration more than anything else. I don't like the direction of the team, I think the GM and coaching staff are very questionable, I hate the defensive scheme, and am skeptical that they can make the ZBS work...
Wist, why are you skeptical about the ZBS? I'd say it's coming along nicely after a slow start... As I stated above, I do think that a RB is a need position, but Noah Herron was running through some sizable holes and Morency started well. He has the skills for this scheme, but obviously, if you can't hang on to the ball, you can't play.

We all want to see the team win, but this year, what's more important is that we see the team continue to develop. I'm seeing that on both sides of the ball. Playoffs this year isn't part of the plan. That's for next year.

[Brainerd]

Sorry Vince. You seem like a smart guy but you're hiding behind optimism and the belief that rebuilding was an acceptable solution to the Packers woes. Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Doesn't make it true.

The rise of the Bears started in 2004 with the hiring of Lovie Smith. A very good coach known for his defense. After his first year in which the Bears were 5-11 Lovie looked at his offense and fired the OC (http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/CHI/8067315/url). A great move. Perhaps MM will do the same thing after this season with Bob Sanders. One can only hope. After all MM's strength is offense and the Packers problems are defensive in nature. An inverse of the Bears situation during Lovie's first season.

11 of the 22 starters you cited were on the Bears prior to the hiring of Lovie. 7 more were added in Lovie's first season. 4 of those 7 were acquired through FA or trade. That leaves 3 draft picks. That's not rebuilding to me. Its reloading. They made the playoffs in Lovie's second season. No learning curve, no inexperience excuses, no gutting of the team.

We are now in TT's second season. It was his choice to hire a new staff. A new inexperienced staff. It was his choice to gut the Packers. I would agree with some of his cuts. You would also have to agree that many of his cuts are still playing in the NFL. I'm not saying that they were all stars but he has mishandled 2 stars, 2 playmakers. TT instituted confusion and incohesion into the Packers team mentality. A complete shock to the system. I submit that he overreacted without cause. He could have taken his time as Lovie did with the Bears. A few cuts last year, a few cuts this year, a few more next year.

The Bears didn't rebuild they hired a great coach with loyalty to the bottom line in the NFL. That bottom line is winning. Winning now, not next year, or the year after. Rebuilding is a term for losers. Which explains why TT and his handpicked staff refuse to admit that they are rebuilding.

[vince]

Sorry Vince. you're hiding behind the belief that rebuilding was an acceptable solution to the Packers woes. Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Doesn't make it true.
Brainerd, please look back at the salary cap situation that Mike Sherman created for this franchise and offer realistic solutions that would have made the team a Super Bowl contender.

This franchise had no choice but to release some quality players that I have no doubt we would have loved to keep, except for the fact that dollars had to be cut from our cap position. Who would have restructured? What makes you so sure?

I have no doubt that you won't really follow up, because YOU are the one that is HIDING BEHIND you're "losing is for losers" short-term mentality, acting as if there were simple silver-bullet solutions to the problems that Mike Sherman created over time.

Well those silver bullets don't exist Brainerd. Or if you want to enlighten us, give it a shot... I'm game. Who should we have cut to keep us under the cap? What great talents did Sherman draft that TT cut that would have given us the third and fourth year players that we should have on our team today that we should be building around? What players should TT have signed, and for how much? In which year? Hindsight is 20/20, and I'd still like to see your solutions...

[Brainerd]

Sorry Vince. you're hiding behind the belief that rebuilding was an acceptable solution to the Packers woes. Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Doesn't make it true.
Brainerd, please look back at the salary cap situation that Mike Sherman created for this franchise and offer realistic solutions that would have made the team a Super Bowl contender.

This franchise had no choice but to release some quality players that I have no doubt we would have loved to keep, except for the fact that dollars had to be cut from our cap position. Who would have restructured? What makes you so sure?

I have no doubt that you won't really follow up, because YOU are the one that is HIDING BEHIND you're "losing is for losers" short-term mentality, acting as if there were simple silver-bullet solutions to the problems that Mike Sherman created over time.

Well those silver bullets don't exist Brainerd. Or if you want to enlighten us, give it a shot... I'm game. Who should we have cut to keep us under the cap? What great talents did Sherman draft that TT cut that would have given us the third and fourth year players that we should have on our team today that we should be building around? What players should TT have signed, and for how much? In which year? Hindsight is 20/20, and I'd still like to see your solutions...

You made the proposal that we were in salary cap hell with no way out, Vince. Its up to you, Vince, to provide proof. I simply disagree and want proof, Vince.

Surprised I responded Vince, you pompous boob.

[vince]

The rise of the Bears started in 2004 with the hiring of Lovie Smith. A very good coach known for his defense. After his first year in which the Bears were 5-11 Lovie looked at his offense and fired the OC (http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/CHI/8067315/url). A great move. Perhaps MM will do the same thing after this season with Bob Sanders. One can only hope. After all MM's strength is offense and the Packers problems are defensive in nature. An inverse of the Bears situation during Lovie's first season.
Brainerd, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here other than essentially repeating what was in the original post...?

[Brainerd]

The rise of the Bears started in 2004 with the hiring of Lovie Smith. A very good coach known for his defense. After his first year in which the Bears were 5-11 Lovie looked at his offense and fired the OC (http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/CHI/8067315/url). A great move. Perhaps MM will do the same thing after this season with Bob Sanders. One can only hope. After all MM's strength is offense and the Packers problems are defensive in nature. An inverse of the Bears situation during Lovie's first season.
Brainerd, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here other than essentially repeating what was in the original post...?

You and I are simply in disagreemnt over the necessity of TT's rebuilding campaign and what in effect constitutes rebuilding. A term TT has yet to admit to as far as I know. But you and I both know we are rebuilding.

[vince]

11 of the 22 starters you cited were on the Bears prior to the hiring of Lovie. 7 more were added in Lovie's first season. 4 of those 7 were acquired through FA or trade. That leaves 3 draft picks. That's not rebuilding to me. Its reloading. They made the playoffs in Lovie's second season. No learning curve, no inexperience excuses, no gutting of the team.

We are now in TT's second season. It was his choice to hire a new staff. A new inexperienced staff. It was his choice to gut the Packers. I would agree with some of his cuts. You would also have to agree that many of his cuts are still playing in the NFL. I'm not saying that they were all stars but he has mishandled 2 stars, 2 playmakers. TT instituted confusion and incohesion into the Packers team mentality. A complete shock to the system. I submit that he overreacted without cause. He could have taken his time as Lovie did with the Bears. A few cuts last year, a few cuts this year, a few more next year.

The Bears didn't rebuild they hired a great coach with loyalty to the bottom line in the NFL. That bottom line is winning. Winning now, not next year, or the year after. Rebuilding is a term for losers. Which explains why TT and his handpicked staff refuse to admit that they are rebuilding.
Brainerd, the Bears rebuilding started two years before Lovie was hired. It has taken the Bears longer to rebuild because they did JUST WHAT YOU SEEM TO THINK THE PACKERS SHOULD DO!!! Take their time... Get worse over a longer period, just so maybe the fans can have something to hang onto.

IMO, Brainerd, this is simply delaying the inevitable. Why suffer through a longer period of rebuilding? Why wait? This team needed an overhaul. It had a lot of dead weight. Now it has a lot of young players that need experience. They're getting that experience and looking better each week. That will ramp up the time it takes to become a consistent winner - not delay it, as you would prefer.

[Brainerd]

11 of the 22 starters you cited were on the Bears prior to the hiring of Lovie. 7 more were added in Lovie's first season. 4 of those 7 were acquired through FA or trade. That leaves 3 draft picks. That's not rebuilding to me. Its reloading. They made the playoffs in Lovie's second season. No learning curve, no inexperience excuses, no gutting of the team.

We are now in TT's second season. It was his choice to hire a new staff. A new inexperienced staff. It was his choice to gut the Packers. I would agree with some of his cuts. You would also have to agree that many of his cuts are still playing in the NFL. I'm not saying that they were all stars but he has mishandled 2 stars, 2 playmakers. TT instituted confusion and incohesion into the Packers team mentality. A complete shock to the system. I submit that he overreacted without cause. He could have taken his time as Lovie did with the Bears. A few cuts last year, a few cuts this year, a few more next year.

The Bears didn't rebuild they hired a great coach with loyalty to the bottom line in the NFL. That bottom line is winning. Winning now, not next year, or the year after. Rebuilding is a term for losers. Which explains why TT and his handpicked staff refuse to admit that they are rebuilding.
Brainerd, the Bears rebuilding started two years before Lovie was hired. It has taken the Bears longer to rebuild because they did JUST WHAT YOU SEEM TO THINK THE PACKERS SHOULD DO!!! Take their time... Get worse over a longer period, just so maybe the fans can have something to hang onto.

IMO, Brainerd, this is simply delaying the inevitable. Why suffer through a longer period of rebuilding? Why wait? This team needed an overhaul. It had a lot of dead weight. Now it has a lot of young players that need experience. They're getting that experience and looking better each week. That will ramp up the time it takes to become a consistent winner - not delay it, as you would prefer.

Where do you get delay? I'm saying the exact opposite. Methodical patience is not delay. You can win without rebuilding. This idea that losing is acceptable is what I'm questioning. One bad season, yes, it happens. The Bears sucked prior to Lovie. One bad season is all the Bears have had under Lovie to this point. TT is looking at two in a row. And you support him? Because it takes time? No, sorry. He has the burden of proof and his proof so far is losing. How can you deny that?

Its during Lovie's tenure that the Bears have progressed. They have done it slowly using both the draft and FA, not just the draft. TT himself admitted that he was shocked at how quickly the FA's were grabbed this year. Yet another in a long line of TT mistakes.

The Bears are now in year 3 and are the current darlings of the NFL. TT is in year 2 of his tenure and year 1 of his coaching staff. He has gutted this team. Lovie did not gut the Bears in season 1.

You feel that its necessary to rebuild and used the Bears as an example. I feel its unnecessary to rebuild and used the Bears as an example. Two differing opinions using the same facts, or so i thought.

TT reminds me of the Texas chainsaw madman. Cutting anything he sees. His cuts have caused needless shock to the cohesion of the Packers as a team of players who know and understand one another. Some of the cuts have worked. Law of averages. You see a method. Fine. Your opinon. I see madness.

[vince]

Sorry Vince. you're hiding behind the belief that rebuilding was an acceptable solution to the Packers woes. Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Doesn't make it true.
Brainerd, please look back at the salary cap situation that Mike Sherman created for this franchise and offer realistic solutions that would have made the team a Super Bowl contender.

This franchise had no choice but to release some quality players that I have no doubt we would have loved to keep, except for the fact that dollars had to be cut from our cap position. Who would have restructured? What makes you so sure?

I have no doubt that you won't really follow up, because YOU are the one that is HIDING BEHIND you're "losing is for losers" short-term mentality, acting as if there were simple silver-bullet solutions to the problems that Mike Sherman created over time.

Well those silver bullets don't exist Brainerd. Or if you want to enlighten us, give it a shot... I'm game. Who should we have cut to keep us under the cap? What great talents did Sherman draft that TT cut that would have given us the third and fourth year players that we should have on our team today that we should be building around? What players should TT have signed, and for how much? In which year? Hindsight is 20/20, and I'd still like to see your solutions...

You made the proposal that we were in salary cap hell with no way out, Vince. Its up to you, Vince, to provide proof. I simply disagree and want proof, Vince.

Surprised I responded Vince, you pompous boob.

I am not surprised to see that you responded with not one viable alternative solution.

Instead, you continue to denigrate TT's direction with no real answers for what you think he should have done. Not even a gratuitous, "he should have kept Mike Wahle." off-the-cuff comment (which I would have agreed with, BTW).

Anyway, if you don't believe that the Packers had serious problems upon TT's arrival, and want me to PROVE it for you, I submit to you the PROOF... Here's the Packers 2005 salary cap figures, not including, of course, the full cap hits that Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle, Darren Sharper would have created.

http://www.packersnews.com/legacy/team/2005salaries.pdf#search=%222005%20green%20bay%20pa ckers%20salary%20cap%20%22

2005 GBP Salary cap Number = $82 million
League instilled Salary Cap = $84 million

Not resigning Sharper trimmed 3.4 million
Not resigning Wahle trimmed over $10 million
Not resigning Rivera trimmed over $4 million
That's over $15 million that had to be trimmed. How would you have done that, Brainerd?

And here is an article that documents the situation. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050203/ai_n11011903

Just some quotes and comments that I'll list here for you, Brainerd.


Brandt, Green Bay's vice president of player finance who has handled free agent negotiations for the Packers the past seven years, knows this year's hurdles are formidable.

Guards Mike Wahle and Marco Rivera along with tight end Bubba Franks head the list of Green Bay's 10 unrestricted free agents. Restricted free agents such as defensive end Aaron Kampman, tackle Kevin Barry and running back Najeh Davenport also could attract some interest.

Brandt and the Packers have only begun negotiations with these players. But in the next month, as the pressure intensifies to get several of these deals done, Brandt will be largely responsible for keeping the Packers viable under the salary cap and competitive on the field.

What lies ahead, though, for Brandt & Co. will make Fisher's deal look simple.

Wahle, arguably one of the top five guards in football, undoubtedly has to be a top priority. But whether the Packers can afford him remains to be seen.

Wahle turns 28 next month and is in his prime. The two sides are still feeling each other out, but Wahle indicated late in the year he expects this to be his blockbuster contract.

"I plan on it," Wahle told Packer Plus. "I think I'm one of the top (guards), no doubt about it. I'm pretty high. There's a lot of good players in this league, but honestly, I don't think there's a lot that do what I can do as far as moving around. What separates a lot of players is what they can do in space. And if I'm not one of the top guys, I don't know who is."

And here's an article documenting the contracts that Wahle, Rivera and Sharper signed and their cap situations... http://packers.mostvaluablenetwork.com/2005/03/


"Mike Wahle is a 28 year old high energy very physical and athletic guard. His ability to pull and block in space was a key to the Packer’s sweeps and screens. There is little question in my mind that he is one of the top few guards in the NFL. However, Carolina was willing to pay him like a tackle - $11.5M signing bonus, $27M over 5 years. Although I think Wahle is a special player and was a fantastic contributor to Green Bay’s offense, I also think this contract is completely out of line for a guard and I support Thompson’s unwillingness to compete at this financial level.

Marco Rivera is a 32 year old guard with a history of knee problems, and a history of playing through any imaginable pain. However, while Rivera was and is a model warrior, it’s unclear that he can maintain his performance in the face of his body’s deterioration. Rivera signed with Dallas for $19M over 5 years. Again, while I have only the highest regards for Rivera and his play, I think again this contract is excessive for a guard and I support Thompson’s decision to not bid at this level.

Darren Sharper is a playmaker, but he has never been a particularly reliable safety. In the last two years he has been injured for much of the time, and appears to have lost a step. While his ball-hawking skills are superb, as demonstrated by the large numbers of interceptions he grabs every year, he seems to get lost in coverage all too often and seems to be to have been a liability in pass protection at least as often as he was an asset. Sharper was scheduled to make a completely unrealistic $8M this year, and refused (wisely, as it turns out) to agree to a more realistic $2M / year."

OK, Brainerd, there's your proof.

Now what would you have done differently?

[vince]

11 of the 22 starters you cited were on the Bears prior to the hiring of Lovie. 7 more were added in Lovie's first season. 4 of those 7 were acquired through FA or trade. That leaves 3 draft picks. That's not rebuilding to me. Its reloading. They made the playoffs in Lovie's second season. No learning curve, no inexperience excuses, no gutting of the team.

We are now in TT's second season. It was his choice to hire a new staff. A new inexperienced staff. It was his choice to gut the Packers. I would agree with some of his cuts. You would also have to agree that many of his cuts are still playing in the NFL. I'm not saying that they were all stars but he has mishandled 2 stars, 2 playmakers. TT instituted confusion and incohesion into the Packers team mentality. A complete shock to the system. I submit that he overreacted without cause. He could have taken his time as Lovie did with the Bears. A few cuts last year, a few cuts this year, a few more next year.

The Bears didn't rebuild they hired a great coach with loyalty to the bottom line in the NFL. That bottom line is winning. Winning now, not next year, or the year after. Rebuilding is a term for losers. Which explains why TT and his handpicked staff refuse to admit that they are rebuilding.
Brainerd, the Bears rebuilding started two years before Lovie was hired. It has taken the Bears longer to rebuild because they did JUST WHAT YOU SEEM TO THINK THE PACKERS SHOULD DO!!! Take their time... Get worse over a longer period, just so maybe the fans can have something to hang onto.

IMO, Brainerd, this is simply delaying the inevitable. Why suffer through a longer period of rebuilding? Why wait? This team needed an overhaul. It had a lot of dead weight. Now it has a lot of young players that need experience. They're getting that experience and looking better each week. That will ramp up the time it takes to become a consistent winner - not delay it, as you would prefer.

Where do you get delay? I'm saying the exact opposite. Methodical patience is not delay. You can win without rebuilding. This idea that losing is acceptable is what I'm questioning. One bad season, yes, it happens. The Bears sucked prior to Lovie. One bad season is all the Bears have had under Lovie to this point. TT is looking at two in a row. And you support him? Because it takes time? No, sorry. He has the burden of proof and his proof so far is losing. How can you deny that?

Its during Lovie's tenure that the Bears have progressed. They have done it slowly using both the draft and FA, not just the draft. TT himself admitted that he was shocked at how quickly the FA's were grabbed this year. Yet another in a long line of TT mistakes.

The Bears are now in year 3 and are the current darlings of the NFL. TT is in year 2 of his tenure and year 1 of his coaching staff. He has gutted this team. Lovie did not gut the Bears in season 1.

You feel that its necessary to rebuild and used the Bears as an example. I feel its unnecessary to rebuild and used the Bears as an example. Two differing opinions using the same facts, or so i thought.

TT reminds me of the Texas chainsaw madman. Cutting anything he sees. His cuts have caused needless shock to the cohesion of the Packers as a team of players who know and understand one another. Some of the cuts have worked. Law of averages. You see a method. Fine. Your opinon. I see madness.
You are confusing the GM and rebuilding timeframe with the coaching changes.

The Bears began to rebuild their roster in 2002. Almost their entire team has been added since that time. It's now 2006. That's 5 years.

Lovie came onboard in the 3rd year of the Bears roster rebuild.

The Packers began to rebuild in 2005. This is their second year, as you indicated.

MM came onboard this year, in the 2nd year of the roster rebuild. This is his first year.

The Bears turned their coaching staff one year later than the Packers, and had made less progress in improving the roster than the Packers in their second year.

But in your mind, that's a bad thing. The Packers should be holding on to the dead weight longer, so there's not so much roster turnover - just a roster with less talent, but more tenured and overpaid players.

I guess if you think that's the way they should have done it, that's obviously your perogative. I think you'll find that only delays the process of becoming a super bowl contending team again.

And you can say that the Packers should retool or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't matter what anyone calls it. My belief is that when you are in cap hell and have limited talent on the roster - call it what you want but you have to change that situation by getting rid of the overpaid underperformers and get young talent onboard and begin to build a new foundation on which to build a winner.

[VegasPackFan]

Mediocrity is nothing to strive for.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to put yourself in the position to truly be a contender in the future instead of a pretender in the present.

[Brainerd]

Sorry Vince. you're hiding behind the belief that rebuilding was an acceptable solution to the Packers woes. Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Doesn't make it true.
Brainerd, please look back at the salary cap situation that Mike Sherman created for this franchise and offer realistic solutions that would have made the team a Super Bowl contender.

This franchise had no choice but to release some quality players that I have no doubt we would have loved to keep, except for the fact that dollars had to be cut from our cap position. Who would have restructured? What makes you so sure?

I have no doubt that you won't really follow up, because YOU are the one that is HIDING BEHIND you're "losing is for losers" short-term mentality, acting as if there were simple silver-bullet solutions to the problems that Mike Sherman created over time.

Well those silver bullets don't exist Brainerd. Or if you want to enlighten us, give it a shot... I'm game. Who should we have cut to keep us under the cap? What great talents did Sherman draft that TT cut that would have given us the third and fourth year players that we should have on our team today that we should be building around? What players should TT have signed, and for how much? In which year? Hindsight is 20/20, and I'd still like to see your solutions...

You made the proposal that we were in salary cap hell with no way out, Vince. Its up to you, Vince, to provide proof. I simply disagree and want proof, Vince.

Surprised I responded Vince, you pompous boob.

I am not surprised to see that you responded with not one viable alternative solution.

Instead, you continue to denigrate TT's direction with no real answers for what you think he should have done. Not even a gratuitous, "he should have kept Mike Wahle." off-the-cuff comment (which I would have agreed with, BTW).

Anyway, if you don't believe that the Packers had serious problems upon TT's arrival, and want me to PROVE it for you, I submit to you the PROOF... Here's the Packers 2005 salary cap figures, not including, of course, the full cap hits that Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle, Darren Sharper would have created.

http://www.packersnews.com/legacy/team/2005salaries.pdf#search=%222005%20green%20bay%20pa ckers%20salary%20cap%20%22

2005 GBP Salary cap Number = $82 million
League instilled Salary Cap = $84 million

Not resigning Sharper trimmed 3.4 million
Not resigning Wahle trimmed over $10 million
Not resigning Rivera trimmed over $4 million
That's over $15 million that had to be trimmed. How would you have done that, Brainerd?

And here is an article that documents the situation. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050203/ai_n11011903

Just some quotes and comments that I'll list here for you, Brainerd.


Brandt, Green Bay's vice president of player finance who has handled free agent negotiations for the Packers the past seven years, knows this year's hurdles are formidable.

Guards Mike Wahle and Marco Rivera along with tight end Bubba Franks head the list of Green Bay's 10 unrestricted free agents. Restricted free agents such as defensive end Aaron Kampman, tackle Kevin Barry and running back Najeh Davenport also could attract some interest.

Brandt and the Packers have only begun negotiations with these players. But in the next month, as the pressure intensifies to get several of these deals done, Brandt will be largely responsible for keeping the Packers viable under the salary cap and competitive on the field.

What lies ahead, though, for Brandt & Co. will make Fisher's deal look simple.

Wahle, arguably one of the top five guards in football, undoubtedly has to be a top priority. But whether the Packers can afford him remains to be seen.

Wahle turns 28 next month and is in his prime. The two sides are still feeling each other out, but Wahle indicated late in the year he expects this to be his blockbuster contract.

"I plan on it," Wahle told Packer Plus. "I think I'm one of the top (guards), no doubt about it. I'm pretty high. There's a lot of good players in this league, but honestly, I don't think there's a lot that do what I can do as far as moving around. What separates a lot of players is what they can do in space. And if I'm not one of the top guys, I don't know who is."

And here's an article documenting the contracts that Wahle, Rivera and Sharper signed and their cap situations... http://packers.mostvaluablenetwork.com/2005/03/


"Mike Wahle is a 28 year old high energy very physical and athletic guard. His ability to pull and block in space was a key to the Packer’s sweeps and screens. There is little question in my mind that he is one of the top few guards in the NFL. However, Carolina was willing to pay him like a tackle - $11.5M signing bonus, $27M over 5 years. Although I think Wahle is a special player and was a fantastic contributor to Green Bay’s offense, I also think this contract is completely out of line for a guard and I support Thompson’s unwillingness to compete at this financial level.

Marco Rivera is a 32 year old guard with a history of knee problems, and a history of playing through any imaginable pain. However, while Rivera was and is a model warrior, it’s unclear that he can maintain his performance in the face of his body’s deterioration. Rivera signed with Dallas for $19M over 5 years. Again, while I have only the highest regards for Rivera and his play, I think again this contract is excessive for a guard and I support Thompson’s decision to not bid at this level.

Darren Sharper is a playmaker, but he has never been a particularly reliable safety. In the last two years he has been injured for much of the time, and appears to have lost a step. While his ball-hawking skills are superb, as demonstrated by the large numbers of interceptions he grabs every year, he seems to get lost in coverage all too often and seems to be to have been a liability in pass protection at least as often as he was an asset. Sharper was scheduled to make a completely unrealistic $8M this year, and refused (wisely, as it turns out) to agree to a more realistic $2M / year."

OK, Brainerd, there's your proof.

Now what would you have done differently?

And my point which you continue to ignore is that we'll never know. You say it couldn't be done and everyone is just supposed to believe you? For an optimist you seem to think that nothing could be done with Wahle and others. I don't know and I never stated that I did. All I ever said is that its your opinion that it could never be done.

I never made any claim that it could be done. What is the result? Your opinion versus my opinion. Both valid in my mind but apparently not in your mind. You threw out opinion as fact and I called you on it. That simple.

[vince]

And my point which you continue to ignore is that we'll never know. You say it couldn't be done and everyone is just supposed to believe you? For an optimist you seem to think that nothing could be done with Wahle and others. I don't know and I never stated that I did. All I ever said is that its your opinion that it could never be done.

I never made any claim that it could be done. What is the result? Your opinion versus my opinion. Both valid in my mind but apparently not in your mind. You threw out opinion as fact and I called you on it. That simple.
I do think that TT's biggest error was not finding a way to resign Wahle, but I'm not sure he could have. But you're saying that TT should have "retooled" and that he should have kept/signed more veterans. If you're prepared to criticize him, I assume you're prepared to offer specific alternative solutions that would have been better to support your position.

So far, you haven't. That's a cop out. In the end, the argument will come down to our opinion about the value of specific players for the money, but I would think you'd have some specific thoughts about what you would do differently...

I am fully in support of the direction this team is going. If the Packers don't turn the corner next year and reach the playoffs, then TT will have failed in his efforts, at least in my opinion. From my perspective, he's well on his way to getting the job done...

[Brainerd]

And my point which you continue to ignore is that we'll never know. You say it couldn't be done and everyone is just supposed to believe you? For an optimist you seem to think that nothing could be done with Wahle and others. I don't know and I never stated that I did. All I ever said is that its your opinion that it could never be done.

I never made any claim that it could be done. What is the result? Your opinion versus my opinion. Both valid in my mind but apparently not in your mind. You threw out opinion as fact and I called you on it. That simple.
I do think that TT's biggest error was not finding a way to resign Wahle, but I'm not sure he could have. But you're saying that TT should have "retooled" and that he should have kept/signed more veterans. If you're prepared to criticize him, I assume you're prepared to offer specific alternative solutions that would have been better to support your position.

So far, you haven't. That's a cop out. In the end, the argument will come down to our opinion about the value of specific players for the money, but I would think you'd have some specific thoughts about what you would do differently...

I am fully in support of the direction this team is going. If the Packers don't turn the corner next year and reach the playoffs, then TT will have failed in his efforts, at least in my opinion. From my perspective, he's well on his way to getting the job done...

Again, I'm not criticizing TT as much as I'm disagreeing with the thesis that rebuilding is necessary in today's NFL. That and what constitutes rebuilding. You used the bears and I in turn used the same Bears' facts you presented to form my contrary opinion. Its called discussion.

I see no copout from where I sit. The discussion was about rebuilding and the how the Bears got where they are today. I gave many examples. The sudden, seemingly indiscriminate, gutting of a team can cause unnecessary havoc destroying any semblance of team unity because no one ever knows what's going on.

The Bears didn't gut their team in one year. The Packers under TT have just this year alone turned over much of the roster. Last year's team was Sherman's team minus many of the stars TT couldn't resign. He didn't cut much dead-weight last year except for Hunt. In fact much of the dead-weight TT cut this year was the dead-weight his own self added last year.

Its a point, that's all. A point about rebuilding. Or TT's approach to rebuilding. And its nothing like the Bears as far as I can see.

All I care about is that the Packers find a way to get back to respectability and compete for the Superbowl. We disagree on how that can best take place.

[wist43]

Firstly, I would like to say that a lot of my comments of late are born out of frustration more than anything else. I don't like the direction of the team, I think the GM and coaching staff are very questionable, I hate the defensive scheme, and am skeptical that they can make the ZBS work...
Wist, why are you skeptical about the ZBS? I'd say it's coming along nicely after a slow start... As I stated above, I do think that a RB is a need position, but Noah Herron was running through some sizable holes and Morency started well. He has the skills for this scheme, but obviously, if you can't hang on to the ball, you can't play.

We all want to see the team win, but this year, what's more important is that we see the team continue to develop. I'm seeing that on both sides of the ball. Playoffs this year isn't part of the plan. That's for next year.

Vince,

I know the ZBS works very well in Denver and Atlanta, but I don't like it from a philosophical standpoint... My preference is for more of a smash mouth style with more pulling and counters. I don't like the idea that we can't just line up and run it down their throat.

The ZBS places a premium on smallish, athletic OL which I think leads to problems in pass protection and getting bull rushed by bigger DT's. Beyond that, smallish OL have to be almost perfect wrt to position and technique, whereas a bigger, stronger player can get away with less refined technique. There's simply no margin for error when a smaller, weaker player goes against a bigger, stronger player.

Beyond these concerns, I too hate that they let Wahle get out of town... For that matter, I regarded Wahle and Walker to be the Packers two best players, and in my view, TT all but ran them both out of town.

Those two moves put TT in my dog house... he's got a long way to go prove himself to me.

[vince]

Again, I'm not criticizing TT as much as I'm disagreeing with the thesis that rebuilding is necessary in today's NFL. That and what constitutes rebuilding. You used the bears and I in turn used the same Bears' facts you presented to form my contrary opinion. Its called discussion.

I see no copout from where I sit. The discussion was about rebuilding and the how the Bears got where they are today. I gave many examples. The sudden, seemingly indiscriminate, gutting of a team can cause unnecessary havoc destroying any semblance of team unity because no one ever knows what's going on.

The Bears didn't gut their team in one year. The Packers under TT have just this year alone turned over much of the roster. Last year's team was Sherman's team minus many of the stars TT couldn't resign. He didn't cut much dead-weight last year except for Hunt. In fact much of the dead-weight TT cut this year was the dead-weight his own self added last year.

Its a point, that's all. A point about rebuilding. Or TT's approach to rebuilding. And its nothing like the Bears as far as I can see.

All I care about is that the Packers find a way to get back to respectability and compete for the Superbowl. We disagree on how that can best take place.

Brainerd, we agree in the premise that teams SHOULDN'T have to rebuild. They should be able to retool. That does hold true - FOR TEAMS THAT HAVE MADE GOOD DECISIONS IN PREVIOUS YEARS.

By taking the position that the Packers were, in fact, in such a position, apparently, you've missed the whole point of me having to PROVE the team was in cap hell when TT took over.

"Retooling" was not an option, thanks to our previous GM's decisions. If you think it was, I am STILL WAITING for you to support that argument. Until you do, I am going to presume that you aren't prepared to do so, so I am going to move on to the next premise in which (I believe) you're wrong.

We AGREE that the best state that a franchise can put themselves in is to not HAVE to rebuild. The question (and the next part you have wrong, IMO) is: How must a franchise go about doing that?

There is a way to get to the point to where a team is in position to "retool" for extended periods of time, if not indefinitely.

The wrong way is to put your franchise in cap hell by overpaying underproducing free agents, resigning underperforming homegrown players, undermining the foundation of the team in order to stay "competitive" for a couple more years, and trading away draft picks to get the "one guy" that you think you MUST have, only to see that player not pan out to be the "sure thing" you thought he would be, the result of which is losing draft picks and wasting drafts by not infusing young talent onto the team year in and year out.

THIS IS WHAT MIKE SHERMAN, the GM, DID. IT DIDN"T WORK. It is the reason he was FIRED.

TT inherited a team in cap hell, with virtually no second and third year talent that should be coming into its own and providing the foundation of today's sqad. If you want to disagree with that premise, please provide some NAMES. We all know about the Javon Walker situation. Today, there are two names that I can give you. 1. Mike Wells, and 2. Nick Barnett. Who are the others? There should be 15 examples of this over a three or four year period. They're not here, and it isn't because TT wanted HIS guys. It's because they all SUCKED.

I prefer that a GM have a vision for the position in which he wants the franchise to be, and make decisive decisions to get the team there. TT is doing that, and I submit, he is on the brink of his vision beginning to come to fruition - quicker than other franchises have, such as the Bears, but that'll play itself out the rest of this year and into next year... off topic for your argument.

Anyway, this team had to "rebuild." There are no other two ways about it. Again, please support your argument that they didn't have to, if you can.

What TT is doing is putting the franchise in position to be able to "retool" year in and year out, by being prudent in free agency, first getting the cap situation under control, and then not mortgaging the future by overpaying for aging free agents that are looking for their one big payday, and coming out of drafts with 3, 4, and 5 starters, along with additional solid football players to add depth to the team.

THAT'S how you put the team which wasn't in position to "retool" in position to retool year in and year out.

Ted Thompson is doing that quickly, decisively, and I believe we will see through the rest of this year and into next, successfully.

You think he's going about it the wrong way. That he should have retooled instead, but you have come up with no examples or arguments to support the position that that was a realistically viable option for the state of this franchise.

[vince]

Vince,

I know the ZBS works very well in Denver and Atlanta, but I don't like it from a philosophical standpoint... My preference is for more of a smash mouth style with more pulling and counters. I don't like the idea that we can't just line up and run it down their throat.

The ZBS places a premium on smallish, athletic OL which I think leads to problems in pass protection and getting bull rushed by bigger DT's. Beyond that, smallish OL have to be almost perfect wrt to position and technique, whereas a bigger, stronger player can get away with less refined technique. There's simply no margin for error when a smaller, weaker player goes against a bigger, stronger player.

Beyond these concerns, I too hate that they let Wahle get out of town... For that matter, I regarded Wahle and Walker to be the Packers two best players, and in my view, TT all but ran them both out of town.

Those two moves put TT in my dog house... he's got a long way to go prove himself to me.
OK, so you don't like the ZBS philosophy. I like what leads to success. The combination of ZBS and the completion-oriented passing attack seem to me to be a very good combination. I can see your point about pass blocking and ZBS, which would indicate that the ZBS and vertical passing attack would make a very poor marriage.

You can't point to pass blocking being a problem for this team at this juncture... I don't believe it will be a problem in the future with the foundation of this line. Ironically, the bigger, experienced pass blocking vets have been guilty more than the rooks when it has come to pass blocking errors. So I'm not sure where you're coming from philosophically, but on the field, it appears as if it's beginning to work very well, and your concerns appear to be unfounded...

As far as Wahle and Walker are concerned, we agree on Wahle. I wanted to see him resigned, but again, his position, as documented above, was that he wanted a huge payday. Keeping his existing, extremely backloaded contract that Sherman had set up for him was not an option at the time. The Packers needed to cut $15 million and he was set to cost $11 million against the cap that year. I'm not math genius, but those numbers go in diametrically opposing directions. He HAD to be restructured or let go. Simple math there. Beyond that, matching the offer he got from Carolina was very close to being as bad as his existing contract. The only option was to let him go, or restructure A BUNCH of other people. As much as we would like to have seen that happen, that's NOT an easy thing to do. Who to restructure, and if you do, you are perpetuating the problems that got you to this point in the first place... Although we both wanted to see Wahle continue as a Packer, this was Mike Sherman's fault in giving Wahle such a backloaded contract in the first place.

I gotta go, but it's been documented ad nauseum about Walker situation. In a nutshell, that was Walker's selfish, immature attitude that screwed that situation up. Not TT.

[run pMc]

A few comments:
(1) nice post, Vince.
(2) There was no way Wahle would have resigned. Even ignoring that, GB would have had to be EXTREMELY creative in the contract. Either way, he wanted big $ and GB was right against the cap.
(3) Cutting 10 guys to keep one is not worth it.
(4) This team will improve. It takes time.
(5) Losing is not acceptable, but improvement is. Sometimes the best lessons are learned from mistakes.
(6) The defensive coaches gotta be worried about their jobs.
(7) Not a big fan of ZBS, but any new offensive system takes time for players to get down. MIN has a squad full of veterans and they can barely score.
(8) This offseason will say a lot about the players M3 & TT want to keep. Usually Year 2 is where the housecleaning gets beneficial...or head coaches fired.
(9) I stand by my 5-11 prediction this year; next year will be better. Having said that, I recall some posters saying all they could hope for this year was a competitive team that showed weekly improvement. I think we're getting that.
(10) With respect to TT's signings, some worked out & some haven't. The FA pickings are much slimmer now than 10 years ago; teams are smarter about managing the cap and signing their own players. So looking to FA doesn't work, unless you just look for role players and depth builders. That (along with drafting smart & great coaching) helped NE get to the Super Bowl.
Patience, people.

[wist43]

I wouldn't concede that they're getting the job done in pass protection at this point... the only reason they're keeping Favre upright is b/c they're helping inside with the TE, RB, or both. When they try to block one-on-one, it's a jail break.

I agree the line will improve, but they're never going to scare anyone...

As for Wahle, I don't think it would have been too difficult to get him signed... they carried a decent amount of change over from the '05 cap over to the '06 cap... that money could have been used for Wahle. Beyond that, they knew the CBA would get done, and increase the cap - by how much was anybody's guess - but they could have, and should have, given him guarenteed bonuses that would kick in in '06 and '07 when they knew they'd have plenty of cap room.

I know you see things optimistically... and I acknowledge there is at least something there to hang your hat on; but, in the two years since TT has been here, he has made numerous mistakes that have set the rebuilding process back... to say they'll be competitive by 2008 is to assume that nothing else goes wrong, that TT hits on most of his draft picks (and given the horrific track record of the scouting dept, that's a dubious propsition at best), that the young guys develop into front line starters, and that Rodgers is actually a player - that's an awful lot of assumptions that must fall into place.

As for now, Favre keeps them in games and gives them a chance - imagine this team w/o him???

[run pMc]

in the two years since TT has been here, he has made numerous mistakes that have set the rebuilding process back

And Sherman did what to help 'rebuild'? TT has done more in 2 years to upgrade GB's roster than Sherman did in his last 2.
I'm glad people can agree that we are rebuilding, even if TT won't say it outright.

Just because GB "could have, and should have" given Wahle guaranteed bonuses doesn't mean he would have taken the offer. A nice big fat signing bonus from a contender on the rise vs. money next year on a team in apparent decline (the defense was run by Slowik then).
I doubt Wahle regretted his decision last year.

Either way, he's gone and not coming back soon. wahle = :beat:

I see a lot of postings about how TT should offer contracts to this player or for that amount. It's fun to play armchair GM, but it ignores the possibility that the player might have unreasonable $ demands, might have a better offer, or just might not want to play here. Also, we don't always know about every offer GB makes. I doubt TT is sitting on his thumbs...even he can see this roster still needs work.

GB is rebuilding, and I think is headed in the right direction. It's painful to watch sometimes, but these kids are improving. M3 has to make sure he doesn't lose his players over the bye. I'm hoping things turn out like Dungy's first year in TB (1996?) - they were a bunch of laughingstock rookies (started out 1-8) the first half of the season, but finished 6-10 and were a tough out nobody wanted to play.

[wist43]

The subject of Wahle may be :beat:, but when you're evaluating TT it has to be revisited and taken into account.

As for the rebuilding process itself - at least most posters can now agree we're rebuilding. It's hard to take people seriously when they're throwing 12-4 predictions around, when the team is clearly more of a 4-12 team.

As Vince and others have pointed out, there are some bright spots, but it's going to take a long time to right this ship... all the longer b/c Favre will inevitably retire, and there will be more growing pains with Rodgers.

Looking ahead to 2008 or 2009 is a realistic timeline... if TT doesn't have the ship righted by then he should be shown the door, and the rebuilding process will have to begin all over again.

[MJZiggy]

I don't know if it would have to begin all over again, Wist. Even if the team doesn't perform well enough to make the playoffs by then, we'll still have some good talent to work with. When TT got here, the team was aging and had a number of players underperforming and it needed a gutting. In another three years, the players he's bringing in will all just be hitting their prime and we would likely just need a remodel as opposed to starting all over.

Actually, if this is M3's idea of knocking down a wall or two and adding a coat of paint, I'd hate to see what his idea of a rebuild would look like.

[wist43]

I don't know if it would have to begin all over again, Wist. Even if the team doesn't perform well enough to make the playoffs by then, we'll still have some good talent to work with. When TT got here, the team was aging and had a number of players underperforming and it needed a gutting. In another three years, the players he's bringing in will all just be hitting their prime and we would likely just need a remodel as opposed to starting all over.

Actually, if this is M3's idea of knocking down a wall or two and adding a coat of paint, I'd hate to see what his idea of a rebuild would look like.

The problem is that if they aren't very competetive by '08-09 TT and M3 are likely out the door... then you're looking at a new GM and coach. Who will likely have different philosphies and schemes.

And since the OL is being built for a ZBS, unless the new coaching staff keeps the scheme - just about all of those OL would be either useless or substandard. One thing is for sure, they'll be undersized.

And then defensively, if you bring in a new DC, you're definitely looking at a new scheme. About the only player you can say for sure will still be on that defense would be Hawk.

Of course it matters not one wit to look that far ahead - just playing the IF game.

Hopefully TT and M3 succeed, b/c IF they don't - we could be looking at 2010-1011 for a return to respectability.

As the "Kool-Aiders" have been pointing out, and I grudgingly agree to some extent, there are some rays of hope poking through - so hopefully we never get to "Rebuild #2".

[woodbuck27]

" "I am fully in support of the direction this team is going. If the Packers don't turn the corner next year and reach the playoffs, then TT will have failed in his efforts, at least in my opinion. I am fully in support of the direction this team is going. If the Packers don't turn the corner next year and reach the playoffs, then TT will have failed in his efforts, at least in my opinion. From my perspective, he's well on his way to getting the job done..." Vince

OK ...I'm checking in.

The " monster of the midway " not coming down on you Vince, as I do respect you, but I have no respect for OUR GM Ted Thompson with all he's NOT in my view.

Now... to begin Vince:

" From my perspective, he's well on his way to getting the job done..." Vince

Question:

a) What support can you possibly lend to that optimism?

That Ted Thompson is well on his way to getting "the Packers" to a playoff position (and Vince,you say next season) or otherwise in your words Vince:

but just a moment, first...

" If the Packers don't turn the corner next year and reach the playoffs, then TT will have failed in his efforts " Vince

b) May we gather from your statement above Vince?

That no playoff position in 2007 predicates that you will deem that Ted Thompson is a failure as OUR GM, if that's the case or obvious sometime in the 2007 season ?

So leaping ahead, or gathering that your response to question b) will be in the affirmative.

Your window of assessing Ted Thompson as OUR GM is three seasons, or 2005-07.

Before you respond to question a)

Let's just review his Record as OUR GM Vince.

1. We are still debating on this board "the fact or not", that Ted Thompson could "in reality" have restructured Players Contracts to enable/ensure Mike Wahle still being a Packer.

Now... *** given that Ted Thompson allowed Rivera and Sharper to walk and then extended HC Mike Sherman ( a highly contentious move, given that he set him up for a miserable season and then turned around and used Mike Sheman as a scapegoat as he FIRED Mike Sherman.

( Gag reflex !! )

but no less...

2. Vince? Couldn't the money returned to the kitty *** there certainly have assisted in retaining Wahle?

A thought here Vince.

We won't go into, other CAP money that was available or could have been made available to ensure resigning Mike Wahle.

For example.

We won't consider "the fact"... that Brett Favre has in his past, and likely would have restructure his personal Contract (again), to ensure such an important player as Mike Wahle obviously was/would be for his success, and as a result was a must FA retention for OUR team for 2005 and beyond.

Then again. We won't open up "an old can of worms" and revisit that when Ted Thompson was hired as OUR GM.

That Brett Favre and several other Packers were not in the plans for OUR future, as that would be highly speculative. Especially given the way that Brett Favre is currently performing, as one of not even a handful playmakers.

Let's get past 2005, and go straight to this season including Ted Thompson's Off Season moves.

Well I believe when we speculate on the wonders of Ted Thompson as a Drafting Guru, we have to consider his record thus far in Green Bay.

I'm calling his 2005 Draft a miserable failure as he took a QB in round one that has demonstrated (still) nothing to me, to hardly give me any comfort, that he's even close to being anyone's successor, more so Brett Favre's. We had too much need on OUR team to assist Brett Favre in improving on OUR efforts in 2004, a 10-6 season... to waste a #1 Draft pick on a QB that was falling to us. Oh how very fortunate we were. Right !!

We had other needs than a backup to Brett Favre... as we are talking Brett Favre. Come On Ted Thompson. That was your first and most revealing error as OUR GM

Followed by questionable picks thereafter in the Draft in 2005.

Oh, we may argue that we have one useful starter fr. the 2005 Draft in Safety Nick Collins, but what's with him to date in 2006?

A sophomore jinx?

It well could be that ( and arguably in the affirmative) that Ted Thompson's Draft in 2005 was a complete disaster.

At BEST only two players may be on that Super Bowl team that YOU maintain Vince... that Ted Thompson may build and that you'll support him as long as we make the playoffs in 2007. mmmmm

Based on what,Vince?

Based on what, other than pure and unsupported speculation?

We are not "the Chicago Bears" and Ted Thompson isn't Lovie Smith, Vince.

So I maintain that we can't speculate on the success of next season's Draft as yet, even if the players chosen in 2006's Draft appear to be keepers.

Yet, lets go to what we are seeing there.

AJ Hawk. He's LOST in the strength department on the inside rush. AJ Hawk is being manhandled. He isn't strong enough to rush inside and has to upgrade his strength to be as we hoped he'd be at a PRO BOWL Level in three seasons time.

G/T... or is it GT/G Darryn Colledge is about as mobile as Quasi Modo. Now the talk is that he has to play in his natural position or LT, " to really shine " and that assumes that Chad Clifton is about done.

Suddenly, with the new and improved ZBS the Ted Thompson and Co.'s almost gurantee to us, that the ZBS will be "just it"; we are witnessing the self destruction of formerly reliable Tackles Clifton, and easily OUR best Offensive Lineman last season...Mark Tauscher.

Geee before Ted Thompson Clifton and Tauscher were solid.

Ohhh ! It's the ZBS...I see. :mrgreen:

I like what Spitz brings to us at the guard position, to date.

I love what WR Greg Jennings brings to us. Greg Jennings plays BIG at WR. He could even be assessed as very close to being OUR #1 WR.

Tony Moll.. NO! NOT HAPPENING !

Tyrone Culver? Maybe him or Marviel Underwood (On IR and out for the season and possibly a productive choice for TT in the 2005 draft) will team up with Nick Collins **, once he gets over his sophomore jinx..or maybe that isn't an NFL thing, just NHL?

** Later on that ** this post... see Marquand Manuel.

Will Blackmon. I pray to GOD this player is all I believe he could be as we are screwed at CB now, and that won't improve as long as Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy procrastinate on making a coaching change to upgrade OUR Secondary... instead of the, well procrastination ,and scapegoating with a cherry on top approach, they have adopted to date...

again ...

another GAG REFLEX !

We had (what... 12 picks in the 2006 Draft ?) because Ted had (picks #36 and #37 was it ?) and elected in his way... to spend quality picks... for numbers of less quality players... because he gutted OUR team or because he felt "he was blessed with Good Luck" in his life??

I would compare that to the concientious landlord that invests money in tidy property that he/she has pride in, to rent to people who will expect decent living conditions... as opposed to the Slum landlord.

Packer GM Ted Thompson is like "the Slum Landlord".

Let's move away from TT's expertise...LOL. The main feature of his secret plan that will restore "the Packers" to GLORY or the DRAFT.

Now ,I will certainly agree. That his strongest suit, is his ability (or poster's here's perceived ability), that TT's some outstanding Guru of "the DRAFT".

Excuse me but...

Anther difficult to control...GAG REFLEX.

How can we have a great ability to draft, when OUR Scouting Dept. can't even advise Ted Thompson competently on talent available in Free Agency?

How many FA's still with us from 2005?

Did Ted take it down on his Scouting Dept?

Nope. Ted's loyal to his boys...but the Packer players are today's or tomorrow's wash water.

Too many reasons for Ted Thompson to make huge changes in OUR Scouting Dept. after 2005 and he does what?

That's correct. NOTHING.

Why's that Packer fans? Ever consider that Ted Thompson is nothing more than a puppet.That he is being shoved / pushed... little more than the silly puddy that he resembles?

Why can't Ted Thompson evaluate talent and be realistic in such evaluation for OUR immediate and future success?

The FA's from 2005...ALL Busts.

IMO and I include DT Ryan Pickett who has looked less than impressive compared to the Mike Sherman Packers... whooo ! whooo ! on OUR DL. The FA acquisition's (new to the team) have all been terrible.

CB Charles Woodson is a bust.

His number always seems to be on the ground instead of making plays and defending pass's. This stupid signing concerning the over the TOP inflated cost to OUR Cap (even for one disasterous season at $10 Million) makes no sense to me.

Excuse me while I try to control my...

GAG Reflex !!

Marquand Manuel = another BUST !!

Way to go Ted Thompson... way to show us consistency.

I'm stopping here as my stomach can't handle anymore, Vince.

Good luck in helping those of us that see "just the TRUTH'" about Ted Thompson, and expect him to be stripped of his no POWER no ability or competence to do otherwise..... than take OUR Team to NFL HELL.

You have confidence in Ted Thompson though, Ehh Vince.

We are 5W - 16L since he became OUR GM.

He is devious as hell... a DAM lier.

He's false in his actions. Wanting us to believe that his hatchet attacks hurt him so. He's just plain n' simple ...

False...a pure counterfeit. A lousy choice as OUR GM.

No backbone to even stand behind his OWN incompetent moves, with solid resolve and conviction, based in... " this is what had to be done because it was correct to do".

He's absolutely false, absolutely weak, absolutely wishy washy.

Ted Thompson done zero for us but harm us to date and horribly so.

Ted Thompson in his incompetence. DAM near was successful in driving Brett Favre away.

As a result of that deceit, and what other NFL players and media experts see in Green Bay; I believe will not support us getting the quality players we need in Free Agency.

We are presently 1- 4 this season and 5 - 16 since Ted Thompson; and you are going to give him your vote of confidence till sometime in 2007, and only withdraw that support if we fail to make the playoffs?

Vince:

A prediction.

YOU Sir ...will be withdrawing your support of Ted Thompson sometime next season.

[vince]

Thanks for checking in Woody. I look forward to engaging you in this debate about our GM. I respect your opinion and integrity on this board, and while we clearly disagree on the value of our GM, we do agree that our goal is to bring success to Packerland.

I will tackle your lengthy response in multiple posts. Here's hoping PR has ample server capacity to handle this one... It'll be a doozy. I'll be back Woody. Hang in there.:D

[Rastak]

Thanks for checking in Woody. I look forward to engaging you in this debate about our GM. I respect your opinion and integrity on this board, and while we clearly disagree on the value of our GM, we do agree that our goal is to bring success to Packerland.

I will tackle your lengthy response in multiple posts. Here's hoping PR has ample server capacity to handle this one... It'll be a doozy. I'll be back Woody. Hang in there.:D


Maybe you could write it offline during the night and submit it tomorrow?

Perhaps you could release it in installments over the bye week?


Just some ideas......

[BooHoo]

TT can only end up as a hero or a zero. Making so many changes in his short stay so far he will either prove his great ability to lead this team or will prove that he was the worst GM in pack history. I am hoping for the former. I do not want to re-live the 1970's.

[vince]

"
a) What support can you possibly lend to that optimism?

That Ted Thompson is well on his way to getting "the Packers" to a playoff position (and Vince,you say next season)
Yes, Woody, I expect the Packers to be a playoff team - or at a minimum - very close to such next year. From where does this "optimism" come?

From a General Management Perspective

1. Our GM, Ted Thompson, is supremely experienced, having had the unique opportunity to work very closely with some legendary and genius football leaders and general managers for over 15 years, namely Ron Wolf and Mike Holmgren - two relatively well-known and highly-respected individuals around these parts.

I won't spend a lot of time examining the two legendary individuals' resumes with whom Ted Thompsom has had the opportunity to work so closely with, other than to say that both men are brilliant football minds who know how to groom talent into production, and who know a thing or two about how to go about developing and leading winning football teams.

2. Our GM, Ted Thompson, is a proven talent evaluator. You may recall that he served our own Packer organization for 8 years under Hall of Famer Ron Wolf's tutelage, from 1992 through 1999 as Director of Pro Personnel (until '97), and Director of Player Personnel (through the '99 season). During that time, he was right smack dab in the middle of, and played a pivotal role in putting together the SUPER BOWL CHAMPION Green Bay Packers in 1996 and the Super Bowl team of 1997. With Ted Thompson's help, the Packers acquired free agents Reggie White, Sean Jones, Don Beebe, Santana Dotson, Desmond Howard, and others. Together, and with Coach Mike Holmgren, they restored a winning tradition and high expectations to Green Bay that has continued through today.

Beginning in 2000, Thompson served as Vice President of Football Operations with Mike Holmgren in Seattle for another 5 years. His fingerprints were ALL OVER the Seahawks' road to last year's Super Bowl, and, many would say, if not for some refereeing snafu's would have architected another Super Bowl Champion. NFL MVP Shaun Alexander, Thompson's first draft pick in 2000, captured the league rushing title and established a new league record for touchdowns. Half of the Seahawks starters on their Super Bowl team, including All-Pro Steve Hutchinson and the previously-mentioned Alexander, were drafted by Ted Thompson.

3. Our GM, Ted Thompson, has the pleasure and significant advantage of working in conjunction with a highly respected staff that includes Director of Pro Personnel Reggie McKenzie, Director of Scouting John Dorsey, Personnel Analyst to the General Manager John Schneider, and Vice President of Player Finance Andrew Brandt. This is a proven, very talented and experienced executive team of advisors from which he gains significant input and sound advice on a daily basis.

4. Our GM, Ted Thompson, has established a clear vision for this franchise, and is acting decisively and consistently to achieve that vision as quickly as possible through the use of proven and sound strategies. His vision and strategies are outlined below.

Thompson's VISION: Build a football team structure that places the franchise in position to achieve the Packers' mission YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT, which is "to be a DOMINATING FORCE in professional football's competitive arena."

Thompson's STRATEGIES:
a. OBJECTIVELY evaluate the status of the team at all times.
b. Create and maintain the salary cap flexibility to enable you to act in ways that help you achieve your vision.
c. Build the talent foundation of the team through the draft. See Strategy B.
d. Don't put all your eggs in one basket in the draft. That one player that you think you "must" have has a better chance of being a complete bust than he has of becoming a Pro Bowler.
e. Especially in the first round, get THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE, regardless of "need."
f. Use free agency to patch holes, not build the foundation. See Strategy B.
g. When possible, favor younger free agents, as opposed to those looking for their one big payday. See Strategy B.
h. Signing VALUE wins championships. Overpaying for underperformers leads to problems. See Strategy B.

5. Our GM, Ted Thompson has stopped perpetuating the slippery slope of backloading player contracts and mortgaging the future to delay the decline of a team's fortunes. He has directed a rapid transition from Salary Cap HELL to EXCEPTIONAL salary cap position for the future. (See Strategy B)

6. Our GM, Ted Thompson has passion, believes in himself, works hard, is confident, and trusts himself and his team of personnel men. These are all essential traits in being a successful GM.

7. Our GM, Ted Thompson hired a coach that wasn't even on anyone else's radar screen - a coach that has a lot to prove yet, but one that I am more and more impressed with as I learn more about him.

From a Coaching Perspective
Mike McCarthy is a leader, is tough, disciplined, determined, and communicates well, but in a no-nonsense fashion. And he has an excellent football mind.

He understands the importance of teaching, understands the importance of holding EVERY player accountable for their performance, and understands the importance of having a clear picture of what the future state of this team MUST be. He fearlessly takes action each and every day to bring it closer to that state.

He's also a rookie, who has made mistakes, is learning from them, will make some more mistakes, and will learn more from them, but make no mistake. This man is growing into this job, and this team has consistently improved since the first game. I have very little doubt that it will continue to improve.

Mike McCarthy is a proven offensive genius. Anyone who equates San Francisco's problems last year to Mike McCarthy has no idea whatsoever about which they speak. He led the most prolific offensive stint in New Orleans' 45-year history as Offensive Coordinator, breaking numerous team records along the way. In 2000 McCarthy was chosen Assistant Coach of the Year by USA Today.

Sure, there will be additional bumps in the road, but I believe Mike McCarthy is destined to be a GREAT coach in this league, and that is high praise indeed. Coaches don't get to be great until they win Super Bowls.

Here's a quote I found from Rich Gannon about Mike McCarthy.

He's the guy that really helped catapult my career. He was the guy who really taught me the West Coast system of football. He really taught me how to prepare for a game, taught me how to watch film, how to break down an opponent, how to study. It was really those things I took with me to Oakland. There was never a doubt in my mind he'd be a head coach. He a great play-caller, great working with the quarterbacks. He's a tough guy, a guy willing to do the work, and he's a leader. I think he'll do a phenomenal job.

From a Team Perspective
This team has been rebuilt, almost from the ground up, in a short period of time. No less than 13 starters this year are new. That'll create a learning curve for the most experienced of teams, and the Packers team is not that.

Our GM, Ted Thompson, inherited a team that was full of backloaded contracts, was in cap hell, and was coming of a series of poor drafts that left the team with few players around which it could realistically build its depth. That's what you call a bare cupboard, and there was no money to buy new dishes.

Fast forwarding to today, our team has rapidly come together to become a team that, while overall young and inexperienced, has talent. There's a nucleus of young players that will be around for a long time. They will grow together to form the foundation of this team. Nick Collins, Marviel Underwood, AJ Hawk, Abdul Hodge, Brady Poppinga, Ryan Pickett, Corey Williams, Aaron Kampman, Jason Spitz, Scott Wells, Tony Moll, Daryn Colledge, Greg Jennings.

And there are some veterans that are beginning to provide the performance and leadership needed.

And there's that guy named Brett Favre. He will perhaps end up being the greatest quarterback of all time before he's done. I give him two more years after this one. As long as he keeps himself in shape and stays healthy, there's no reason why he won't... While his skills aren't quite what they used to be, he's still one of the best when he is properly corralled and executes the offense. While he's had some "relapses" here and there, he's beginning to do that again, and his numbers are beginning to show it again. The only thing that brought Brett down last year was his decision-making. You don't become dumber with age. You get smarter. With the right offense and the right film work. Brett will be reborn with the rebirth of his team.

This team is playing much better together. Give them a bye week to prepare and work together more, and there is no reason whatsoever to say that this team won't continue to get better and better. They need to learn how to become more consistent, and they need to learn how to win. That'll come - this year. In fact, I don't understand those who seem to think this team WON'T continue to get better and better. Where's the evidence that would lead to that conclusion?

I see the Pack rebounding to finish out the year a respectable 6 - 6. Talent and experience-wise, I don't think they're quite that good yet. They're still 6 players away, plus some depth at a couple positions away from being really good in my opinion. But this team, like their coach, has a lot of heart, a lot of fight, and a lot of passion to give everythign they have, and overachieve for the rest of this year.

Next offseason, the team needs some help, but they added 13 starters last offseason. I think they can add 6 next offseason... They have the cap room to do it... Hopefully, the right mix of talent will be available.

This team needs an RB, TE, OT on offense next year, and a DE, CB, and S on defense, as I see it. I believe those pieces will be added in the offseason, and when that happens, next year's team, as a result of all that's included in this extensive post, will be a playoff team once again.

THOSE are the sources of my optimism, Woody. Now to your next question...

[vince]

" " If the Packers don't turn the corner next year and reach the playoffs, then TT will have failed in his efforts " Vince

b) May we gather from your statement above Vince?

That no playoff position in 2007 predicates that you will deem that Ted Thompson is a failure as OUR GM, if that's the case or obvious sometime in the 2007 season ?

So leaping ahead, or gathering that your response to question b) will be in the affirmative.

Your window of assessing Ted Thompson as OUR GM is three seasons, or 2005-07.

One at a time, Woody. My God you are all over the board in that post.

I believe that Ted Thompson not only SHOULD have this team on a very firm footing in the year 2007. I believe he WILL do just that. I see this team, with a number of additions in the next offseason, which we are in perfect position to make, as being very capable, with a little good luck, as all successful teams need, to be a playoff-caliber team next year.

If Ted Thompson has this team in position to be that, then he will have succeeded. Ted Thompson can't throw the football, catch passes, run the ball, or stop the run. He can put the people in place, and I expect him to do that. The man knows talent. There are no two ways about it.

If he comes in far below a playoff caliber team next year, then I believe he will have failed. I don't think that the rebuilding process needs to take 5 years anymore in this league. Ted Thompson is rebuilding pretty much from the ground up, starting from cap hell with little depth. He'll establish that timeframe as three years. Other teams have taken longer, and other teams don't have to rebuild. Unfortunately, THIS team did.

[vince]

Let's just review his Record as OUR GM Vince.

1. We are still debating on this board "the fact or not", that Ted Thompson could "in reality" have restructured Players Contracts to enable/ensure Mike Wahle still being a Packer.
For Ted Thompson to restructure a bunch of deals to ensure Mike Wahle was still a Packer would have merely perpetuated the disease that ailed the team's situation. By restructuring deals, you are taking the dollars that are on this year's books and setting up new contracts with these players for more years out in the future.

THIS DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. RATHER, IT MAKES IT WORSE AND DRAWS IT OUT FARTHER IN THE FUTURE.

These players that restructure don't give money back. In fact, for the FAVOR of restructuring, you have to pay them MORE for LONGER. In order to do that, you have to backload their contract WORSE than it already was.

That's exactly the WRONG thing to do, Woody. You COULD do that, IF you want to make the team operate at an increasing competitive DISADVANTAGE FOR MORE YEARS IN THE FUTURE when you have more guys that are over the hill, not performing like they once could, yet you still have them on your cap books for large chunks of your available salary alotment.

BAD MOVE, Woody.

Having $15 million dollars and more allotted to players that are not contributing to your team in a year burdens the team with a built-in competitive DISADVANTAGE. This is why those teams that use this tactic fight with everyhting they have to win, because they have the vets on the team, but they're all overpaid and don't play like they used to.

Remember the Packers from a few years back, Woody? Those teams taht we so fondly remember in the Sherman era that were 10-6 in weak divisions, barely made the playoffs, and promptly got smoked like a cheap cigar in the first round every year? That's the poster child for this affliction. That's what you get. You don't get Super Bowl caliber teams. That's a proven fact.

[vince]

" "Now... *** given that Ted Thompson allowed Rivera and Sharper to walk and then extended HC Mike Sherman ( a highly conrtentious move given that he set him up for a miserable season and then turned around and used Mike Sheman as a scapegoat as he FIRED Mike Sherman.

( Gag reflex !! )
You would have preferred that he fired him immediately? I've been very harsh on Mike Sherman, the GM, but I am not as harsh on him as a coach. I do think that Mike McCarthy is a MUCH BETTER coach, and I have no doubt that will prove itself out in time. However, it's not about finding a scapegoat. That's an absolute joke. Mike Sherman was not a scape goat. Ahmad Carroll was not a scape goat. They are individuals that, in the eyes of the management group, were not the best fits for the future direction of the franchise.

It's the people who need to reinforce their disdain for Ted Thompson that say that EVERY MOVE he makes is a SCAPEGOAT for his own failures, as they see them. That's a completely baseless and ineffective argument.

Ted Thompson has great responsibility to succeed in his position. Like any executive, in any industry, he needs to get his team of managers that compliment his personality and that he communicates well with and whom he/she trusts to make decisions that are in line his vision.

If Ted Thompson had confidence in Mike Sherman to make such decisions, he would still be the coach. He obviously didn't, and he's not. Perhaps Mike Sherman had a personality conflict, or had deep-seeded resentment for losing his power with the team... The team's direction was no longer Mike Sherman's vision. That probably caused some issues on some level. We really don't know, because we don't know what their REAL relationship was like. The bottom line is this. Ted Thompson gave Mike Sherman EVERY OPPORTUNITY to succeed in his daily activities as coach of the team, and Ted Thompson, who was given the responsibility of making judgements about the best coach for the team, judged him to be not the best fit. Nothing else matters.

[woodbuck27]

Thanks for checking in Woody. I look forward to engaging you in this debate about our GM. I respect your opinion and integrity on this board, and while we clearly disagree on the value of our GM, we do agree that our goal is to bring success to Packerland.

I will tackle your lengthy response in multiple posts. Here's hoping PR has ample server capacity to handle this one... It'll be a doozy. I'll be back Woody. Hang in there.:D

Peace Brother Packer fan !

I forgot to say my "I LOVE Ted Thompson's",

100 times today. :mrgreen:

[woodbuck27]

TT can only end up as a hero or a zero. Making so many changes in his short stay so far he will either prove his great ability to lead this team or will prove that he was the worst GM in pack history. I am hoping for the former. I do not want to re-live the 1970's.

I'm with you... but is Ted? :mrgreen:

[vince]

" Couldn't the money returned to the kitty *** there certainly have assisted in retaining Wahle? [/b]

A thought here Vince.

We won't go into, other CAP money that was available or could have been made available to ensure resigning Mike Wahle.

For example.

We won't consider "the fact"... that Brett Favre has in his past, and likely would have restructure his personal Contract (again), to ensure such an important player as Mike Wahle obviously was/would be for his success, and as a result was a must FA retention for OUR team for 2005 and beyond.

Then again. We won't open up "an old can of worms" and revisit that when Ted Thompson was hired as OUR GM.
No, let's revisit that, Woody. But then again, I already answered this a couple posts up. Restructuring contracts to make room under the cap because you have other contracts that are too large is a BAD MOVE, and perpetuates the disease that ails you in the first place.

[vince]

" We won't open up "an old can of worms" and revisit that when Ted Thompson was hired as OUR GM.

That Brett Favre and several other Packers were not in the plans for OUR future, as that would be highly speculative. Especially given the way that Brett Favre is currently performing, as one of not even a handful playmakers.
What in God's name makes you say that Brett Favre isn't part of the plan? HE'S OUR STARTING QB, WOODY! If he comes back next year, HE'LL START AGAIN, and both Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy will be elated.

[vince]

" Let's get past 2005, and go straight to this season including Ted Thompson's Off Season moves.

Well I believe when we speculate on the wonders of Ted Thompson as a Drafting Guru, we have to consider his record thus far in Green Bay.

I'm calling his 2005 Draft a miserable failure as he took a QB in round one that has demonstrated (still) nothing to me, to hardly give me any comfort, that he's even close to being anyone's successor, more so Brett Favre's. We had too much need on OUR team to assist Brett Favre in improving on OUR efforts in 2004, a 10-6 season... to waste a #1 Draft pick on a QB that was falling to us. Oh how very fortunate we were. Right !!

We had other needs than a backup to Brett Favre... as we are talking Brett Favre. Come On Ted Thompson. That was your first and most revealing error as OUR GM

Followed by questionable picks thereafter in the Draft in 2005.

Oh, we may argue that we have one useful starter fr. the 2005 Draft in Safety Nick Collins, but what's with him to date in 2006?

A sophomore jinx?

It well could be that ( and arguably in the affirmative) that Ted Thompson's Draft in 2005 was a complete disaster.

At BEST only two players may be on that Super Bowl team that YOU maintain Vince... that Ted Thompson may build and that you'll support him as long as we make the playoffs in 2007. mmmmm
Woody, please tell me when God came down and gave you the valuable piece of information that Brett Favre would play LAST YEAR, and THIS YEAR, and maybe NEXT YEAR. That piece of information would have been valuable to have. I certainly wish that God would have given Ted Thompson that piece of information, for mere mortals would have believed that the PRUDENT thing to do would be to get a Quarterback that has the potential to TAKE OVER at the helm of the team that we want love. Next time you have that valuable information, Woody, please pass it on, so the mortals on earth can see into the future and make better draft day decisions. Until you do, Ted Thompson will have to act with the best information that he has.

Beyond that, Woody, I'm no genius, but I'd say that Nick Collins, Brady Poppinga, Terrance Murphy, Marviel Underwood, Junius Coston, and Aaron Rodgers wasn't doing to bad in a down draft year. Not his best draft ever, but better than most of Mike Sherman's...

[vince]

" We are not "the Chicago Bears" and Ted Thompson isn't Lovie Smith, Vince.

So I maintain that we can't speculate on the success of next season's Draft as yet, even if the players chosen in 2006's Draft appear to be keepers.
Ted Thompson is not the coach, Woody. Mike McCarthy is. And while you can choose not to speculate on next year's draft, since doing so based objectively on the evidence before you runs counter to your foaming hatred of Ted Thompson.

The fact is, we will know more about the needs of this team at the end of this season than we did at the end of last season. New coach. One year to implement new systems and practices. Logic dictates that we should be able to be more successful choosing players that fit these systems and practices, since there's more information from which to draw.

Go ahead and ignore that fact, Woody. Your decision to do so isn't going to change what happens next season anyway.

[woodbuck27]

" I see the Pack rebounding to finish out the year a respectable 6 - 6" Vince

Let me see 1-4 before the Bye and 6-6 after means....Ohhh Glory Be...
we made the playoffs ...yeaaaaaa !

DAM Lucky though as Rastak's team must have crashed and burned.

So 7-9 got us in. Yeessss!!

:idea: It's just like ....."Back to the Future". :mrgreen:

Then reality sets in.... and ...we bow out in round one.....pooooop.

Seriously, Vince.

I just noticed that you have "Homer's Epic's" lined up for me. That's cool. :cool:

I must say your optimistic Vince.

I must have been... BORN of a BAD SIGN. :mrgreen:

[vince]

" AJ Hawk. He's LOST in the strength department on the inside rush. AJ Hawk is being manhandled. He isn't strong enough to rush inside and has to upgrade his strength to be as we hoped he'd be at a PRO BOWL Level in three seasons time.
AJ Hawk has the strength Woody. He proved that at the combine. His strength is more than adequate for a LB. He doesn't have the technique, nor the confidence, and he's not as strong as Orlando Pace. Not many people are.

Your hatred for Ted Thompson REALLY paints your judgement about this team, Woody. AJ Hawk is going to be VERY GOOD. He's fast, athletic, and strong. He struggles getting off blocks at this point though.

He's a rookie. Show him some love. He'll show it back to you with a little more seasoning.

[vince]

" G/T... or is it GT/G Darryn Colledge is about as mobile as Quasi Modo. Now the talk is that he has to play in his natural position or LT, " to really shine " and that assumes that Chad Clifton is about done.
1. Daryn Colledge is a very mobile and athletic lineman. His problem thus far has been getting bullrushed by large behemoth DT's. He wasn't getting low enough and certainly has more to learn.

This guy has a tremendous upside. He will be a stallwart lineman for the Packers for years to come, at Guard or at Tackle.

And Woody, Chad Clifton is about done. His knees are bothering him, and he's not going to get any better at this stage of his career with those knees. That's the way it goes when you beat your body as a lineman in the NFL for that long and you start to have knee problems.

[woodbuck27]

" Couldn't the money returned to the kitty *** there certainly have assisted in retaining Wahle? [/b]

A thought here Vince.

We won't go into, other CAP money that was available or could have been made available to ensure resigning Mike Wahle.

For example.

We won't consider "the fact"... that Brett Favre has in his past, and likely would have restructure his personal Contract (again), to ensure such an important player as Mike Wahle obviously was/would be for his success, and as a result was a must FA retention for OUR team for 2005 and beyond.

Then again. We won't open up "an old can of worms" and revisit that when Ted Thompson was hired as OUR GM.
No, let's revisit that, Woody. But then again, I already answered this a couple posts up. Restructuring contracts to make room under the cap because you have other contracts that are too large is a BAD MOVE, and perpetuates the disease that ails you in the first place.

I'm not following you there Vince.

What I'm referring to is Brett Favre not taking what he was scheduled to take in 2005, rather allowing (whatever $) that Ted Thompson needed, to secure Mike Wahle (if that was within reason).

[vince]

" Suddenly, with the new and improved ZBS the Ted Thompson and Co.'s almost gurantee to us, that the ZBS will be "just it"; we are witnessing the self destruction of formerly reliable Tackles Clifton, and easily OUR best Offensive Lineman last season...Mark Tauscher.
Tauscher is getting better. Clifton is a great pass blocker, but probably won't cut it for much longer with the ZBS.

The running game is coming along, Woody. It aint gonna be great probably all year, but two straight 100-yd games, and I'm sure you saw the holes that Herron had to run through. Granted, St. Louis isn't the Bears run D, but all we can do is be effective against the team that lines up against us. We'll see how it comes as the season progresses, but I for one, am seeing pretty dramatic improvement. Jags said it'd take a little time. Looks like he might be right...

[vince]

How can we have a great ability to draft, when OUR Scouting Dept. can't even advise Ted Thompson competently on talent available in Free Agency?

How many FA's still with us from 2005?

Did Ted take it down on his Scouting Dept?

Nope. Ted's loyal to his boys...but the Packer players are today's or tomorrow's wash water.

Too many reasons for Ted Thompson to make huge changes in OUR Scouting Dept. after 2005 and he does what?

That's correct. NOTHING.

Why's that Packer fans? Ever consider that Ted Thompson is nothing more than a puppet.That he is being shoved / pushed... little more than the silly puddy that he resembles?

Why can't Ted Thompson evaluate talent and be realistic in such evaluation for OUR immediate and future success?

The FA's from 2005...ALL Busts.

IMO and I include DT Ryan Pickett who has looked less than impressive compared to the Mike Sherman Packers... whooo ! whooo ! on OUR DL. The FA acquisition's (new to the team) have all been terrible.

CB Charles Woodson is a bust.

His number always seems to be on the ground instead of making plays and defending pass's. This stupid signing concerning the over the TOP inflated cost to OUR Cap (even for one disasterous season at $10 Million) makes no sense to me.

Excuse me while I try to control my...

GAG Reflex !!

Marquand Manuel = another BUST !!

Manuel is too slow. He needs to be a reserve. That starter could come from Underwood next year, or free agent. We'll see.

Pickett has been a key component of this D-line that has been VERY effective against the run. I disagree that he's a bust. He's been a SOLID pickup.

Woodson has been pretty good the last couple games. Obviously, it's no secret that the entire defensive backfield was poor the first three games, but Woodson has played well of late. I'll watch him over the next few weeks to see how he'll be. Definitely premature Woody, to call him a bust, but that's what people who are out to prove that Ted Thompson sucks do - jump to conclusions.

[woodbuck27]

" " If the Packers don't turn the corner next year and reach the playoffs, then TT will have failed in his efforts " Vince

b) May we gather from your statement above Vince?

That no playoff position in 2007 predicates that you will deem that Ted Thompson is a failure as OUR GM, if that's the case or obvious sometime in the 2007 season ?

So leaping ahead, or gathering that your response to question b) will be in the affirmative.

Your window of assessing Ted Thompson as OUR GM is three seasons, or 2005-07.

One at a time, Woody. My God you are all over the board in that post.

I believe that Ted Thompson not only SHOULD have this team on a very firm footing in the year 2007. I believe he WILL do just that. I see this team, with a number of additions in the next offseason, which we are in perfect position to make, as being very capable, with a little good luck, as all successful teams need, to be a playoff-caliber team next year.

If Ted Thompson has this team in position to be that, then he will have succeeded. Ted Thompson can't throw the football, catch passes, run the ball, or stop the run. He can put the people in place, and I expect him to do that. The man knows talent. There are no two ways about it.

If he comes in far below a playoff caliber team next year, then I believe he will have failed. I don't think that the rebuilding process needs to take 5 years anymore in this league. Ted Thompson is rebuilding pretty much from the ground up, starting from cap hell with little depth. He'll establish that timeframe as three years. Other teams have taken longer, and other teams don't have to rebuild. Unfortunately, THIS team did.

Ok I am seeing this:

YOU believe that Ted Thompson is REAL. That he does have what it takes to get us back in wining form...maybe alot more.

I certainly respect your beliefs and convictions Vince, but man-o-man... I'm not seeing that Ted Thompson.

How can two people both, dedicated Packer fans sit so polarized... on opposite sides of the fence... regarding someone as important to OUR future as "the Packers GM", and be so opposite in respect to how we each view his efforts... since he sat in his chair for us?

That's really a question to myself, Vince.

[vince]

You have confidence in Ted Thompson though, Ehh Vince.

We are 5W - 16L since he became OUR GM.

He is devious as hell... a DAM lier.

He's false in his actions. Wanting us to believe that his hatchet attacks hurt him so. He's just plain n' simple ...

False...a pure counterfeit. A lousy choice as OUR GM.

No backbone to even stand behind his OWN incompetent moves, with solid resolve and conviction, based in... " this is what had to be done because it was correct to do".

He's absolutely false, absolutely weak, absolutely wishy washy.

Ted Thompson done zero for us but harm us to date and horribly so.
Woody, I doubt if you will ever be persuaded, since you are so strong in your convictions, and have put yourself so far out there, but about all I can say about this little rant is this.

I believe you are absolutely WRONG in your character assassination of Ted Thompson. If you expect Ted - or any GM or Coach - to go in front of the press and always tell the absolute truth with no spin, you're living in a dream world, and believe me when I tell you that you don't want that. The fallout of always telling the truth in every situation is worse than spining some things. You can't go to the press and tell them that you cut Ahmad Carroll because, "He completely sucked." which would be the truth... You can't go to the press and say, "I am forced to rebuild this team because Mike Sherman was so inept as a GM that we can't sign the guys we'd like to, and on top of that, we are going to have to bring in 30 new players because the last 3 years drafts have been, well, pretty worthless."

You don't assassinate the character and pride of people in public like that, Woody. That's just comon decency.

Beyond that, I'd like to hear from you the specifics about how Ted Thompson is "the devil" or "evil" or whatever you called him...

And if Ted Thompson was WEAK in his character, as you assert, Woody, do you think he would have taken the steps to put this franchise in such great cap situation, at such high personal risk to his reputation? No, if he had a weak character, Woody, he would take the chickenshit way out and go over pay for high-profile guys that the fans would all "oooh" and "aaaah" about, but would never really help the team get to the next level.

Ted Thompson is NOT an eloquent speaker, but do not mistake that for his personal character.

[vince]

" A prediction.

YOU Sir ...will be withdrawing your support of Ted Thompson sometime next season.

You may be right about that Woody. If he doesn't get the team to - or at least very near - the playoffs next year, he will have failed his high reward, high risk game of Green Bay Packer General Management.

Time will tell. One thing I do know. You wore me out Woody.

Have a good night, friend. It's good debating these things with you.

[woodbuck27]

Let's just review his Record as OUR GM Vince.

1. We are still debating on this board "the fact or not", that Ted Thompson could "in reality" have restructured Players Contracts to enable/ensure Mike Wahle still being a Packer.
For Ted Thompson to restructure a bunch of deals to ensure Mike Wahle was still a Packer would have merely perpetuated the disease that ailed the team's situation. By restructuring deals, you are taking the dollars that are on this year's books and setting up new contracts with these players for more years out in the future.

THIS DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. RATHER, IT MAKES IT WORSE AND DRAWS IT OUT FARTHER IN THE FUTURE.

These players that restructure don't give money back. In fact, for the FAVOR of restructuring, you have to pay them MORE for LONGER. In order to do that, you have to backload their contract WORSE than it already was.

That's exactly the WRONG thing to do, Woody. You COULD do that, IF you want to make the team operate at an increasing competitive DISADVANTAGE FOR MORE YEARS IN THE FUTURE when you have more guys that are over the hill, not performing like they once could, yet you still have them on your cap books for large chunks of your available salary alotment.

BAD MOVE, Woody.

Having $15 million dollars and more allotted to players that are not contributing to your team in a year burdens the team with a built-in competitive DISADVANTAGE. This is why those teams that use this tactic fight with everyhting they have to win, because they have the vets on the team, but they're all overpaid and don't play like they used to.

Remember the Packers from a few years back, Woody? Those teams taht we so fondly remember in the Sherman era that were 10-6 in weak divisions, barely made the playoffs, and promptly got smoked like a cheap cigar in the first round every year? That's the poster child for this affliction. That's what you get. You don't get Super Bowl caliber teams. That's a proven fact.

I agree with you Vince on ** the disadvantage of pay less now...more later on behalf of Vet's., based in deferring payment of agreed upon Vet. $ owed today...to free up money to sign young stars.

Your saying that maybe Favre would have ( again ) said... go for it, anf I'll help, or use my Contract as YOU may Ted, but it never came to that.

[vince]

" Couldn't the money returned to the kitty *** there certainly have assisted in retaining Wahle? [/b]

A thought here Vince.

We won't go into, other CAP money that was available or could have been made available to ensure resigning Mike Wahle.

For example.

We won't consider "the fact"... that Brett Favre has in his past, and likely would have restructure his personal Contract (again), to ensure such an important player as Mike Wahle obviously was/would be for his success, and as a result was a must FA retention for OUR team for 2005 and beyond.

Then again. We won't open up "an old can of worms" and revisit that when Ted Thompson was hired as OUR GM.
No, let's revisit that, Woody. But then again, I already answered this a couple posts up. Restructuring contracts to make room under the cap because you have other contracts that are too large is a BAD MOVE, and perpetuates the disease that ails you in the first place.

I'm not following you there Vince.

What I'm referring to is Brett Favre not taking what he was scheduled to take in 2005, rather allowing (whatever $) that Ted Thompson needed, to secure Mike Wahle (if that was within reason).
Woody, surely you're not suggesting that Brett Favre would restructure his contract and play for free? Not gonna happen. He might restructure his contract so that the dollars can be accounted for in future years, but he is going to collect the money that is owed to him, and the only way to get those dollars off the books this year is to back them up into future years...

That doesn't solve the problem. It just delays the problem until next year... Sooner or later, you gotta pay the piper.

[vince]

" " If the Packers don't turn the corner next year and reach the playoffs, then TT will have failed in his efforts " Vince

b) May we gather from your statement above Vince?

That no playoff position in 2007 predicates that you will deem that Ted Thompson is a failure as OUR GM, if that's the case or obvious sometime in the 2007 season ?

So leaping ahead, or gathering that your response to question b) will be in the affirmative.

Your window of assessing Ted Thompson as OUR GM is three seasons, or 2005-07.

One at a time, Woody. My God you are all over the board in that post.

I believe that Ted Thompson not only SHOULD have this team on a very firm footing in the year 2007. I believe he WILL do just that. I see this team, with a number of additions in the next offseason, which we are in perfect position to make, as being very capable, with a little good luck, as all successful teams need, to be a playoff-caliber team next year.

If Ted Thompson has this team in position to be that, then he will have succeeded. Ted Thompson can't throw the football, catch passes, run the ball, or stop the run. He can put the people in place, and I expect him to do that. The man knows talent. There are no two ways about it.

If he comes in far below a playoff caliber team next year, then I believe he will have failed. I don't think that the rebuilding process needs to take 5 years anymore in this league. Ted Thompson is rebuilding pretty much from the ground up, starting from cap hell with little depth. He'll establish that timeframe as three years. Other teams have taken longer, and other teams don't have to rebuild. Unfortunately, THIS team did.

Ok I am seeing this:

YOU believe that Ted Thompson is REAL. That he does have what it takes to get us back in wining form...maybe alot more.

I certainly respect your beliefs and convictions Vince, but man-o-man... I'm not seeing that Ted Thompson.

How can two people both, dedicated Packer fans sit so polarized... on opposite sides of the fence... regarding someone as important to OUR future as "the Packers GM", and be so opposite in respect to how we each view his efforts... since he sat in his chair for us?

That's really a question to myself, Vince.

It seems to me that one of us has our eye on the present from the perspective of the recent past strictly in between the lines, and one of us has our eye on the future from the perspective of the bigger franchise management view.

I see manure. You see shit.